Monthly Archives: April 2012

On the 2nd day of hearing of the case brought against the elderly leader & former Aamir of Jamaat e Islami, Prof Golam Azam, his advocate Barrister Abdur Razzak has said that Jamaat has never formed any Al Badr, Al Shams or Rajakar force. This case cannot run because the government has failed to give the reasons for the delaying of 40 years to start the judgement procedure. Since no authentic complaints are against him, the case should be closed. They have no proofs but few paper cuttings. There are no examples in the World where judgement has started after 40 years.
In the last 25th March, Barrister Razzak started presenting his logics. He finished the last part of hearing yesterday. On Thursday the favor’s side will give out the hearing and then the decision will be passed.
On the 2nd hearing, the aged Prof Golam Azam was brought at the tribunal in an ambulance. He was taken on the 2nd floor on wheel chair. Barrister Razzak commenced the hearing in his presence. He said that in the past 40 years there are no cases, complaints or even any GDs in any of the Police stations in the country. No one filed any cases. If he did any crimes, there would have been cases in the last 40 years. The prosecution could not provide any logic for why this case was opened so late. There are no genuine evidences for supporting the cases against him. No information regarding the formation of Al Badr, Al Shams and Rajakar force by Jamaat e Islami is correct. These forces were not even auxiliary. Auxiliary forces are the ones those operate under the direct command of the Army.
On the part of the killing of Chiru Mia, in the hearing, Barrister Razzak announced it ridiculous and said, somebody took the order in an envelope in Dhaka and a group executed that order and no one in the group became criminal but instead, the man blamed is Golam Azam. How can that be? Where are the people who were into the killing? No descriptions of them are given. The first criminals should be the killers. Even if Golam Azam passed the order; he will be the next criminal. Where are the main killers? Since no info on them exits, the whole case is baseless.
Prof Golam Azam’s advocate Barrister Razzak further said that starting the judgement after 40 years is completely bizarre. Starting from Nuremberg to former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Hague’s international court; no examples like this exists. In the hearing on 25th March, the tribunal Chairman asked about the judgement of Cambodia. Barrister Razzak said, the war in Cambodia started in 1975 and ended in 1979. But internal war went on for 19 years. Within 3 years from the ending of the war, in 2001, a tribunal was formed with the help of the UN and the judgement initiated. Barrister Razzak added that it is the duty of the government’s side to explain this unusual case to the tribunal. They could not present any logical facts. If they fail to satisfy the logical terms, then the judgement procedure should be closed. At a certain stage, Barrister Razzak gave an example of the highest court of Britain, The House of the Lords.
Barrister Razzak added, the government side has given charges against Golam Azam in which no materials were found for the eligibility of charge formation. In the law it is stated that mentioned things must include the name of the witness, where the crime was committed and the type of the crime. In this part, the favor is completely a failure. Prof Golam Azam is the victim of political jealousy and his crimes identified are only for his political statements. At that point, he (Barrister Razzak) raised many examples of War Crimes and said that tribunal at first gets sure on valid proofs that the charge can be put on the accused. Repeating the same incident the government has surpassed the law.
Giving reference from 1973, the Barrister said, Jamaat e Islami and Chatra Shangha, in no ways, fall under the definition of an auxiliary force. Jamaat e Islami was a political organization and Chatra Shangha was a student organization. Illustrating different sections of law, he further added, that even Rajakar does not fall under the category of an auxiliary force. He clearly said, Jamaat never formed Rajakar, Al Badr or Al Shams.
In 1972, on 2nd August, the back then government formed Rajakar passing an ordinance. The Chief of that force was a civilian appointed by the government.

Last Monday, 26th March 2012, marked the 41st anniversary of the Bangladesh’s declaration of independence from Pakistan in 1971. The country’s Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina of the ruling Awami League (AL), publicly celebrated the nation’s most anticipated anniversary in Dhaka withmuch fanfare. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world in Washington DC, the prestigious National Press Club invited Dr Mohammad Nakibur Rahman, the son of the incarcerated Bangladeshi opposition leader, Matiur Rahman Nizami, and International Criminal Lawyer representing the opposition, Toby Cadman, to discuss one of the less savoury manifestations of the war memory today—the controversial International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) of Bangladesh.

On the pretext of war crimes allegations, the AL government in Bangladesh has rounded up the leadership of the most significant opposition parties, detaining them in a manner that has been characterized by the UN’s Working Group on Arbitrary Dententions as arbitrary and in breach of international law. These opposition leaders face the death penalty if found guilty by the ICT. Between growing criticism from proponents at the shortfalls and incompetence of the prosecution to ever increasing opposition from the international community at the questionable legal framework of the ICT and political opposition at the partisan bias it displays, the tribunal has come under mounting pressure. The way the Bangladeshi government has been conducting itself and the ICT over the past two years since its establishment has caused concern from all sides that justice will not be done.

Opposition leader’s son speaks out

The Washington press conference Dr Rahman expressed his grave concern that his father’s life was in danger as consequence of the persecution he is being subject to and the tribunal’s seeking the death penalty for those accused. He then proceeded to describe his father, as he has known him, as singularly humble, of gentle temperament and kind-hearted, stating that he had seen his father spend “sleepless nights worrying about other peoples’ welfare.”

Rahman noted that before 2008, there had never been any charge of illegal activity against his father, and that his exemplary public record had been impeccable. This changed with the ascent of the AL to government in 2008. The opposition leader suddenly began to be accused by the government of blasphemy, sedition, and finally, war crimes, all for reasons of “government vengeance”. Eventually, his 70 year old father was arrested, detained indefinitely, and subjected to torture. Rahman’s family have not been spared persecution either—he states that his mother and sister are routinely harassed when visiting his father, forced to wait long hours, and at times denied visitation altogether. His youngest brother, a 22 year old studying abroad, was denied the renewal of his Bangladeshi passport to return home by the regime and remains “stateless,” stranded abroad for several months. Rahman closed his remarks by asking people to seek out the truth about 1971 based on facts beyond the hearsay based propaganda currently in vogue.

Toby Cadman, an international criminal lawyer specialised in war crimes, was the second presenterat the conference. He began by noting that he would have liked to give this press conference in Bangladesh on this momentous day, but that he is no longer welcome there. On his last visit, he was refused entry on the order of the Home Minister, held at the airport for ten hours, and then unceremoniously thrown out of the country. Cadman stated that a number of allegations had been made against him, including attempting to enter Bangladesh unlawfully and mounting an international conspiracy to undermine the tribunal, all of which are false. As a senior international lawyer with a decade of experience in war crimes tribunals, he asserted that a fair tribunal is absolutely essential to address the crimes that were committed during the Bangladesh independence war, and should have been held forty years ago.

Cadman was careful not to downplay the genuine enormity of the conflict of 1971, which is the premise of these trials—he suggested that the conflict could be considered one of the worst of its kind in modern history in that part of the world. This means, he added, that the process must be properly adjudicated, yet this is not currently the case. Cadman enumerated a long list of flaws in the legal process, including the fact that, in line with a constitutional amendment, those being tried by the tribunal are not eligible for fundamental universal human rights. Given these flaws, Cadman characterized the ICT as an “extraordinary tribunal that sits outside of the law.” The laws governing the present day tribunal were originally established for a military tribunal that was established in 1973, and Cadman noted that they need to be fundamentally reconfigured for the purposes of a civilian tribunal. Given that the death penalty is being sought, and that those targeted are all opposition political leaders, Cadman emphasized that the process had to be beyond reproach. As the tribunal stands, however, he feels this is far from the case.

In response to an audience question, Cadman admitted that it was indeed very difficult to consider the facts and not say this is a very politicized process, acknowledging that the political opposition and only one side of the conflict is being targeted. He added that the tribunal was established in March 2010, and about four months later the first arrests were made, commenting this was “probably the promptest investigations in war crimes history,” and thereby suggesting that the government already knew its targets, and so impartial investigations were not undertaken. Cadman’s hope, however, is that the Bangladesh government will hear the appeals that he and the international community are making to ensure that the process is made more fair.

The conference made clear the undoubtedly essential and belated nature of the ICT in the aftermath of what may be the most brutal event in South Asia’s modern history. However, it is clear the ICT cannot fulfill its purpose following its current approach. For those concerned about the future of Bangladesh, given the present path it pursues, to raise awareness in the international community about the shortcomings of this tribunal is essential to ensuring a trial that achieves the justice and catharsis it claims to seek rather than the division and conflict it continues to cause. Without significant international pressure, it seems unwise to expect anything like a fair process that is in keeping with international standards.